CET: Sky Blues take Coventry City Council to high court over bailout (1 Viewer)

[Big_Ben]

Pretty amazing on a thread where its pretty much been proved that SISU wanting to destroy ACL over the past year was not conspiracy theory, you and Grendels only posts are critasing the council. Are you not able to look at anything from an unbiased place? Personally I'm far from convinced that the council are the good guys but one thing is a cold hard fact SISU are the bad guys.

Your post is silly, lending money and bringing in a profit allows the council to provide more services not less and using cuts in childrens services is emotive rubbish.

Tell that to the childrens' service that suffered the cuts.

 

---

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You got it.. pure $$$ chasers, devoid of ethics. Gimmee gimee gimeee..

Clearly ACL are money slaves to, else they would've compromised on smaller aspects like F&B, arrears. Works both ways.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Looks can be deceiving.

Was the rent still double the average? Yes. The rent agreed was 400k, but SISU said they wanted 150k, compromise was made.
With FFP kicking I, do CCFC need every penny they can scrap, F&B, should be 100%, we make the event, it's our fans going to CCFC games, no 3rd or 4th party should get a penny off us, the leeches, ironically, this is lining a 3rd party's pocket, which we never hear about on here!
Rent arrears should either have been wiped, at best, or worst, at the new set rate.

When SISU wanted to negotiate, who said no? ACL, not SISU.

Cunning plan, don't see how it couldnt benefit the club, you get the scaremongers and conspiracy theorists, but nothing is fact. I haven't come out and said SISU haven't tried to destabilise ACL.

Who exactly do we have to thank for our league status and financial difficulties? We haven't paid rent for a year-do you think our accounts will still show a juicy profit?

As for wanting 100% of the profits-it's not ACL's to give away. Would you rather they take a leaf out of SISU's book and just claim what isn't theirs?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Can capitalism be moral? Not really.

Yes I think it can. Just like everything else....too muc of a good thing...brings its virtues into question. Money is the root of all evil - and the love of it is the route to all evil. Too many people love money & simply cannot get enough of it.

 

[luwalla]

Is it because they actually own the stadium by any chance? unlike the club who have never owned a brick of it.

:facepalm:

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Then why has it taken them until now to challenge it?

I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Tell that to the childrens' service that suffered the cuts.

The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.

Or, they're just doing it as a stalling manoeuvre.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yes I think it can. Just like everything else....too muc of a good thing...brings its virtues into question. Money is the root of all evil - and the love of it is the route to all evil. Too many people love money & simply cannot get enough of it.

See what I said to the ferrets same rhetoric.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Or, they're just doing it as a stalling manoeuvre.

Possibly, it remains to be seen.

 

[Bluegloucester]

Distorting the market is against UK and EU law, that's what SISU will argue, if ACL and CCC have, stay tuned folks.

What market is being distorted?

 

[Noggin]

It would be silly to say that the Council are not rendered for criticism..

The place you have to look at this is from the fence..

I think SISU's time is running out and they're looking at all options that might help in a stalling tactic..

I was looking from the fence, I don't like the council, I dont like the government, I am biased towards the football club, I'm ambivalent towards ACL/ I want the football club to own the stadium. So actually I was on the opposite side of the fence to ACL and the council. Yet despite being in that position I don't see how any even slightly reasonable person can not be full of criticism of SISU and feel that for the most part (at least untill very recently) ACL and the council have been acting very reasonably.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Clearly ACL are money slaves to, else they would've compromised on smaller aspects like F&B, arrears. Works both ways.

They wrote over as much of the F+B money as physically possible. As for the arrears, £1.3m isn't exactly small change; would you honestly write all of it off? Your staunch defence of these clowns becomes more baffling by the post.

 

[davebart]

:facepalm:

what is your point? sorry I am too thick to understand your super point.

 

[James Smith]

Bit late for that though wasn't it? We were actually about to be homeless.

Someone posted on here saying that Sir Higgs had put a clause in the sale of HR so that had the Ricoh not been built we could have bought the stadium back for the same as we got for it. He didn't want us to be homeless I guess, so we might have been a bit more in debt having bought HR back but not homeless.

 

[luwalla]

The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer.

will we ?? what rate of interest were the council getting on that 14 million where it was originally then ? and what rate of interest are they now charging to ACL ?

they are saying that they will charge less interest to ACL than the bank was for the existing mortgage.. so ACL will be better off for sure, but if the council are charging ACL less interest than the bank was.. then could the tax payer have been getting a better rate of interest on that 14 million if it had just been left in a high intrest bank account ?

i dont know & you dont know .. people seem pretty quick to believe that the council did this for the benefit of the tax payer.. yet all that has been stated, is that this deal has been done to save ACL going into admin.. not to make money for the tax payer

 

[davebart]

I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.

three months solicitors time don't come cheap. could have paid the rent instead.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

What market is being distorted?

I'm not saying there has been, I don't know, because I don't know the result of the case yet, it may be found that they didn't distort the market, we'll wait and see.

The loan possibly prevents the club from buying the stadium from ACL, if it mobilised the funds, say the loan is worth 5m, then that further 9m can be used to back up it's investment but unjustly, given that the money was purely for the loan.

Off to school now, bye everybody.

 

[luwalla]

what is your point? sorry I am too thick to understand your super point.

you jumped into a debate we were having about WHERE the loan funding came from.. was it public council money or was it sourced by the council from an external loan..

we are not debating who owns the stadium.. or the reasons fro any loan!

 

[grego_gee]

SISU are arguing that the council have removed their "right" to purchase a distressed company on the cheap, by this intervention.

SISU don't actually need to state, they are the cause of the distress in the first place.

Scum, but I would be pleased to see the Arena and Club under one umbrella eventually. Just not the present regime

The CCFC half interest in the arena was sold to the Higgs Trust Charity for £4m-£6m when CCFC themselves were "in distress", They expected to be able to buy it back later for £4m-£6m.
Now the Higgs trust tie SISU out balloons on the car of the CCFC chief exec.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2012/05/17/ricoh-arena-deal-should-have-made-coventry-city-great-says-paul-fletcher-92746-30988406/3/

imp:

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

will we ?? what rate of interest were the council getting on that 14 million where it was originally then ? and what rate of interest are they now charging to ACL ?

they are saying that they will charge less interest to ACL than the bank was for the existing mortgage.. so ACL will be better off for sure, but if the council are charging ACL less interest than the bank was.. then could the tax payer have been getting a better rate of interest on that 14 million if it had just been left in a high intrest bank account ?

i dont know & you dont know .. people seem pretty quick to believe that the council did this for the benefit of the tax payer.. yet all that has been stated, is that this deal has been done to save ACL going into admin.. not to make money for the tax payer

Well-the council has a 50% stake in ACL already. This interest was directly threatened by SISU's boycott and so the bank loan was commandeered to see off this threat. Had ACL busted like SISU intended, the council, and hence the taxpayer, would've lost out.

What they did means that the part council owned ACL can pay the mortgage plus interest sooner, whilst ensuring that the council also gets a profit off its original £14m loan.

 

[chiefdave]

Well to me it's either a delaying tactic or SISU believe they have a case.

As a delaying tactic I don't see the point, how would SISU be in a better place than they are now after the delay? The only thing I can think of is that they hope to put off any potential buyers but I'm still not sure why they want to stick around and what their plan to get their money back / exit strategy is.

If they have a genuine case it could get interesting but what would the end result be, a judge isn't going to just say hand over the keys to SISU! I wonder if SISU every approached Yorkshire Bank about buying the debt. If they did and recieved indication that they could buy it for somewhere in the £6m region then a whole can of worms could be opened up.

The most interesting thing in this is the fact that the money has actually come from taxpayers despite what everyone has been saying all along. What happens if it turns out the council can't get the loan when they need it or if they lose this case, would anyone give the council a loan for the full amount if it's been shown in court that the asset it is secured against is worth nowhere near the loan amount.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

jim again.. you are either not reading the statement.. or just making stuff up to suit your argument .. what part of the following statement are you not grasping..

"council officers told the Telegraph the £14million had initially come from the council's “cash balances“ * money set aside for unspecified council spending."

so they DID use council tax payers money.. they did not do what you keep saying.. and they have not yet offset that debt anywhere else..

it came out of tax payers money.. and it is still that way now!

Councils do not have any money. They have revenue from taxes (sometimes called other things) which are sometimes invested in things like car parks which they then charge use of to provide a return on investment. The only way in theory at least they share out profits amongst themselves is by using that return to fund fluffy self-interest projects like office refurbishments, or create new very highly paid positions for each other. But it is ALL taxpayer's money. The taxpayers vote people into power to try to have a say in how their collective money (an investment into the community) can be best spent.
I wonder how many would prefer their bins collected weekly rather than fortnightly with some of this money instead? That would mean more jobs too...& hey-presto!!! MORE TAX revenue!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm not saying there has been, I don't know, because I don't know the result of the case yet, it may be found that they didn't distort the market, we'll wait and see.

The loan possibly prevents the club from buying the stadium from ACL, if it mobilised the funds, say the loan is worth 5m, then that further 9m can be used to back up it's investment but unjustly, given that the money was purely for the loan.

Off to school now, bye everybody.

School starts at half 10?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Councils do not have any money. They have revenue from taxes (sometimes called other things) which are sometimes invested in things like car parks which they then charge use of to provide a return on investment. The only way in theory at least they share out profits amongst themselves is by using that return to fund fluffy self-interest projects like office refurbishments, or create new very highly paid positions for each other. But it is ALL taxpayer's money. The taxpayers vote people into power to try to have a say in how their collective money (an investment into the community) can be best spent.
I wonder how many would prefer their bins collected weekly rather than fortnightly with some of this money instead? That would mean more jobs too...& hey-presto!!! MORE TAX revenue!

I believe that the £14m came from the central government fund for local councils. I can't remember the name of it though.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I believe that the £14m came from the central government fund for local councils. I can't remember the name of it though.

And central government get their money from? The taxpayer! They do not have any money either it's ours...all of it! We just blindly trust the government to spend it sensibly (whatever that means)

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Makes me laugh to see arguments in favour of SISU..ie- PWKH tying SISU out balloons to Fisher's car....CCC "Bailing out" ACL. etc,etc.
In my eyes, SISU, "Moving things from one company to another" to disguise who, what, where and when owns CCFC.
Putting CCFC ltd, into Admin, and saying CCFC Holdings, are now in charge!
I'm not a financial expert on monetary subjects but........Isn't this action as close to being "Phoenixing" as could possibly be?...If so, this move is totally illegal. Allegedly.
Love to hear from the "Expert" OSB58 on this one.:thinking about:And Yes!!! I'm talking about SISU not CCC/ACL

 

[grego_gee]

you jumped into a debate we were having about WHERE the loan funding came from.. was it public council money or was it sourced by the council from an external loan..

we are not debating who owns the stadium.. or the reasons fro any loan!

Having worked in LA for many years I don't think there is any real difference. Councils have loans available to them from central government at less than commercial interest rates. Such loans are not made available for sub-lending to private companies!
Any such use would be highly illegal as would using cash balances.
I think I have said this before in not so many words.
The timing was inevitable it could not really have been aired before the tenancy had been ended.
In my view the council won't have a leg to stand on, but I'm not sure what the court will do about it.

imp:

 

[smouch1975]

Totally agree. When does the sunset on the buy back price you mention end?

This probably eludes to why SISU are claiming the re-mortgage price is above market value. Well, above the CCFC specific, within a certain period buy back agreed pricing anyways?

The CCFC half interest in the arena was sold to the Higgs Trust Charity for £4m-£6m when CCFC themselves were "in distress", They expected to be able to buy it back later for £4m-£6m.
Now the Higgs trust tie SISU out balloons on the car of the CCFC chief exec.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2012/05/17/ricoh-arena-deal-should-have-made-coventry-city-great-says-paul-fletcher-92746-30988406/3/

imp:

 

[lordsummerisle]

I believe that the £14m came from the central government fund for local councils. I can't remember the name of it though.

Not at all, it is planned at an unspecified future debt to get that loan from the Government(a loan by the way, don't know if interest charged or not though on Prudential Borrowing loans), but it has come out of local funds for now at least.

Whoever has the club, be it Sisu, Haskell, chancer from Brandon, still questions need to be asked regardless.

 

[James Smith]

Two options here:

SISU are complaining that the council aided ACL by lowering the mortgage interest payments, which in turn allowed ACL to make an vastly improved rent offer to the club. This shows SISU to be idiotic in the extreme.

OR

SISU are complaining that the council (which did not use taxpayers money to fund ACL) helped to ensure that the company that it jointly owned could not be put in distress by SISU not paying contracted rent, and denied SISU the chance to pick up the Ricoh on the sly. This shows SISU to be scum.

So:

Stupid or Scum?

Stupid by all accounts in my opinion.

 

[Sky blue north east]

I don't know, would've got their solicitors on the case, researched it all then decide, possibly could've been done earlier but these things take preparation.

SISU PREPARATION!!! You are having a laugh it prob be dropped at last minute like points challenge was can you not see it delaying tactic there on last legs any decent human beings would admit defeat and walk away!!!!

 

[James Smith]

Not at all, it is planned at an unspecified future debt to get that loan from the Government(a loan by the way, don't know if interest charged or not though on Prudential Borrowing loans), but it has come out of local funds for now at least.

Whoever has the club, be it Sisu, Haskell, chancer from Brandon, still questions need to be asked regardless.

The council are doubtless making more from loaning ACL the money than they would have got from having it sitting in the bank.

 

[luwalla]

Well-the council has a 50% stake in ACL already. This interest was directly threatened by SISU's boycott and so the bank loan was commandeered to see off this threat. Had ACL busted like SISU intended, the council, and hence the taxpayer, would've lost out.

What they did means that the part council owned ACL can pay the mortgage plus interest sooner, whilst ensuring that the council also gets a profit off its original £14m loan.

ok so two things here..

1) your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " is it ?? you still havent answered that

2) all of the above is irreverent to your original quote.. which is what i was replying to. and is the above even correct? .. the tax payer wouldn't have lost out if ACL went bust.. because ACL was making a loss anyway- thats why it had ot be bailed out - and if it was making a loss then the council wouldn't have been getting any profit to pass onto the tax payer would they

but anyway back to your original quote "The council is charging interest on the loan so will make a profit for the taxpayer " will they .. are they charging more interest to ACL, than they could have been getting by leaving that 14 million in a high interest account ?

 

[hotrod]

I just hope that if Sisu should win the Court case that Acl take out a winding up order for non payment of rent which Sisu rightly or wrongly agreed to pay.

Regards.